Forum:Set page redesign
The current format for set pages was introduced nearly six years ago. A couple of changes have been made since then, mainly the inclusion of links to list, gallery and ratio pages and the ambiguity of whether or not to include lists on the set page as well as the list pages or not. Six years later, I think it might be time for an update. One of the big faults with the old format is that it uses HTML tables to layout the page. Using tables for anything other than tabular data is generally bad practice. You can see wikipedia:Tableless web design if you want to find out why. Theoretically, we could use CSS instead of tables to get the set pages to appear visually the same as they are now, but I think it's still time to move away from the old format. I've set up an example of what it could look like. * Suggested version ** Suggested version (OCG/TCG set) ** Suggested version (video game set) * Current version It uses an infobox and sections. I think it's less crammed this way. It should also be easier to edit and update pages, if we make a proper set infobox. The lists were a problem. When we just gave links to the lists pages, a lot of people didn't see the links or know what they were for. Some people were in favour of posting the lists on the main set page as well as the separate pages, while others weren't. Also if people weren't seeing the lists links, they probably weren't seeing the gallery or ratio ones either. I think the lists links are more obvious in this setup. I think the links are more obvious in this format. The lists pages are also transcluded, onto the main page inside a set of tabs for each language, so you can view them without leaving the page and we don't have to do duplicate work. I'd considered a set of tabs for each gallery too, but I thought it might drastically slow down the page load on some computers and make the page very long if one has JavaScript disabled. So yeah, it's just a suggestion, so if you like it, hate it, have a question or have a suggestion please comment. -- Deltaneos (talk) 21:39, July 10, 2012 (UTC) Thoughts Galleries I like it! ^_^ Nice and clean and a little more wiki style. A thought, could we implement in the List section some thing like this: GAOV-BoosterEN.png | Galactic Overlord 1st Edition / Unlimited GAOV-BoosterFR.png | Le Seigneur de la Galaxie 1st Edition / Unlimited GAOV-BoosterDE.png | Galactic Overlord 1st Edition / Unlimited GAOV-BoosterIT.png | Sovrano Galattico 1st Edition / Unlimited GAOV-BoosterSP.png | Señor Supremo Galáctico 1st Edition / Unlimited GAOV-BoosterJP.png | ギャラクティック・オーバーロード Unlimited GAOV-BoosterKR.png | 갤럭틱 오버로드 1st Edition / Unlimited We could use this to display the galleries for the set in a more graphical way. Look234 (talk • ) 22:01, July 10, 2012 (UTC) :Looks very good. Maybe a separate Galleries section, instead of putting it in the Lists section? And maybe the language should be mentioned in each caption too, since it won't be obvious to everyone from just the name and hover text won't always be an option. Obviously, we can also get rid of the Cover gallery section with this. -- Deltaneos (talk) 22:49, July 10, 2012 (UTC) ::That sounds good, we can do that with no trouble. And we can keep the Cover gallery section, maybe rename it, but it can be used for other images specifically related to the set like booster boxes, logos, posters, etc. Look234 (talk • ) 22:57, July 10, 2012 (UTC) :::Do we really need to include the set names in the gallery? so far, i had only seen galatic overlord with the set names in the gallery (excluding the duelist packs articles which i am currently working on). -Lpoi (talk • ) 16:03, August 28, 2012 (UTC) :::And shouldn't we put the ocg packs before the tcg? same goes for the set navigation template. -Lpoi (talk • ) 16:08, August 28, 2012 (UTC) ::::You mean the non-English names just above the links to the gallery pages? I don't think it's a big deal either way. I haven't bothered with it on most of the sets I've updated, but if other people want to add them, I guess I won't complain. :::::I'm not sure. I understand that the OCG is the primary game, but it feels most consistent to always put English first. What about the set list tabs? Do you think we should put the OCG ones first there too? -- Deltaneos (talk) 16:01, August 31, 2012 (UTC) Lists That looks awesome! Definitely far better than my attempt to templateify the current layout, and seeing the way you've presented the set info page links has shown me the best way I've been able to come up with yet for laying out a linking template to be used on the various lists themselves. For the lists, though, I think we need some way to clearly show where someone can go to edit them (at least until such time as we've got the lists automatically generated). 「ディノ奴 」? · ☎ Dinoguy1000 22:06, July 10, 2012 (UTC) :A "v d e" inside each tab maybe? -- Deltaneos (talk) 22:49, July 10, 2012 (UTC) ::Something like that, yes. I'm not sure how best to present it. 「ディノ奴 」? · ☎ Dinoguy1000 03:25, July 11, 2012 (UTC) We should also include a space to include the spoiler list before the main card list is created. -Lpoi (talk • ) 06:24, July 11, 2012 (UTC) :Actually, I think this would be a good opportunity to encourage people to start using the card list as the spoiler list for new sets. Once the entire contents of the set are known, someone can come in and convert the list into a proper spoiler table. This prevents having two copies of the list to maintain (even if said duplicated maintenance is only temporary), eliminates the issue of whether to have the list on pages for older sets (though that particular viewpoint is severely weakened by transcluding the spoiler list onto the set page), and most importantly, keeps the set content history (for a single region/language) all together on a single page. 「ディノ奴 」? · ☎ Dinoguy1000 06:51, July 11, 2012 (UTC) ::so the card list would be created first like the current spoilerlist without the table, and updated when the list is complete. that would be good too. -Lpoi (talk • ) 07:07, July 11, 2012 (UTC) Are we using tabs or not? because on my com it shows all the list for LOB. i think we should use tabs, and only show the japan (if there is) and the english, just like before the redesign. if not we had to scroll through 8 or more lists -Lpoi (talk • ) 03:48, July 30, 2012 (UTC) :The tabs are used, but they're added by some Javascript, and currently there's something broken on Wikia's end that's preventing the tabs (and several other scripts) from working. 「ディノ奴 」? · ☎ Dinoguy1000 03:50, July 30, 2012 (UTC) ::This is broken in Monobook, but working in the default skin for me. Is it the same with you Lpoi? -- Deltaneos (talk) 12:45, July 30, 2012 (UTC) :::same. working in default, but not in mono. -Lpoi (talk • ) 13:06, July 30, 2012 (UTC) Semantics Should we still be using the swmf template? -Lpoi (talk • ) 09:17, July 11, 2012 (UTC) :Once we've made a proper infobox template, that will be included automatically. You just add for example |french name = Le Seigneur de la Galaxie to the infobox and it will have the same effect as adding a new cell with -- Deltaneos (talk) 09:32, July 11, 2012 (UTC) ::Just a note that we should be standardizing template parameter names as we go; the name parameters should be structured as ln''_name per (unless you're actually wanting to use a different format). We can get the other parameter names figured out once we start working on the template, Delt. 「ディノ奴 」? · ☎ Dinoguy1000 09:36, July 11, 2012 (UTC) :::'Certainly in favour of standardising parameter names across templates. I hadn't noticed the archetype infobox had been using the language IDs, rather than names. Both formats work fine for me. If you think the IDs are better, I'm okay with that. There are two latest generation templates that'll need to be updated; and . But, I'm straying a bit off topic now. -- Deltaneos (talk) 10:01, July 11, 2012 (UTC) ::::Maybe we should create an MOS project page for these template parameters, so we can keep track of what names we should be using and have a place to discuss changes/new additions. -- Deltaneos (talk) 13:04, July 15, 2012 (UTC) :::::Here's one to get us started. Maybe not the best laid out, but can be updated. -- Deltaneos (talk) 17:03, July 15, 2012 (UTC) ::::::I've added quite a bit to it; it should now cover almost all of the common parameter naming situations. Any thoughts? 「ディノ奴 」? · ☎ Dinoguy1000 21:27, July 18, 2012 (UTC) :::::::Looks great. I'll probably use its talk page if I want to suggest or question anything. -- Deltaneos (talk) 23:59, July 18, 2012 (UTC) Since the properties on set pages aren't used in many queries at the moment, I suppose now would be a good to rename them if necessary. The main changes, I think we should make are, change plural names to singular names, change the first letter of common nouns to lowercase and make a bit more generic. e.g. English Set Names::Legend of Blue Eyes White Dragon → English name::Legend of Blue Eyes White Dragon and the "English name" property could be used for anything, not just sets. Other properties can be used to make sure you only get sets in your the results of a query. (Dinoguy also suggested the idea of using the general property names a while back.) -- Deltaneos (talk) 19:48, July 14, 2012 (UTC) :This would also be a good time to introduce a property to help with distinguishing stuff in queries on generic properties, something else I've been considering for a while. I'm thinking of a name something like "Page type", but maybe someone else can come up with a better one. The property value would just be the type of page in question, stuff like "Set", "Character", "Archetype", "Card", etc. If necessary, a given page could also have more than one value for this parameter, though I can't think of any use cases for that off-hand. -- as (talk) 22:25, July 14, 2012 (UTC) ::It's a lot more convenient than trying to find unique identifiers for each particular type of page. "Page type" sounds a lot like a set of categories with no subcategories. Without writing a tl;dr of the disadvantages and trivial differences between each method, I think the property might be better. The name "page type" sounds fine to me. Other names that come to mind are "article type", "(article/page) subject" and "(article/page) topic". An example of page that could possible have two would be "Dark Scorpion"; "archetype" and "character group". -- Deltaneos (talk) 00:02, July 15, 2012 (UTC) :::I'd definitely be interested in reading that tl;dr (lol irony), if you feel like writing it up on a user page or something. =D :::The important thing to remember about this property is that it would be added automatically by templates (probably almost entirely by infoboxes, ignoring 's weighty contribution), so any page needing two values for it would thus probably need two infoboxes. 「ディノ奴 」? · ☎ Dinoguy1000 05:35, July 15, 2012 (UTC) Separating sets must we use the english booster as the main image? how should we decide to use the japan or english version? what about older sets like LOB? -Lpoi (talk • ) 13:10, July 11, 2012 (UTC) :We always using English Image - since this is English site. If that set has releasing and there are no English Image, then we have to using Japan, or whichever current activate (such as Spanish, which was allowed when I asked other user year(s) ago) to cover that. But if it's English - we must using that. --iFredCa 13:23, July 11, 2012 (UTC) ::What about some of the older set where the ocg and tcg cards are completely different? just use the most current (which is english) too? -Lpoi (talk • ) 13:47, July 11, 2012 (UTC) :::Those pages, I've felt for a long time, need split (and the dichotomy I've always noticed is Japanese versus everything else, not OCG versus TCG, but that doesn't mean I've been particularly paying attention). The Japanese ''Legend of Blue Eyes White Dragon, for instance, is a 61-card reprint set, whereas the other region versions of it (including Korean and Asian-English) are 100-plus-card (126 for non-Japanese OCG and most of the English/North American TCG, 103 for most of Europe) boosters, incorporating the Japanese LOB and Phantom God. 「ディノ奴 」? · ☎ Dinoguy1000 17:33, July 11, 2012 (UTC) ::::I agree. I think we should class the Japanese Legend of Blue Eyes White Dragon as a separate set than the other languages. Same with many of the early sets like that. That's why I didn't choose Legend of Blue Eyes White Dragon, which is usually the first set to come to my mind, as the set to use in the examples. -- Deltaneos (talk) 19:31, July 11, 2012 (UTC) :::::I disagreed, sorry - why bother making a "class" if we already have gallery that cover the shit? No seriously! --iFredCa 22:26, July 11, 2012 (UTC) ::::::I'm not sure what you're getting at, Fred; we're not talking about adding or making any sort of "class", we're talking about splitting the LOB article into one article for the Japanese reprint set and another article for the non-Japanese booster set, since these are really two different sets. This would simplify our coverage of LOB, and it wouldn't require any of the ratio, gallery, or list pages to be renamed. 「ディノ奴 」? · ☎ Dinoguy1000 03:30, July 12, 2012 (UTC) :::::::::::Then shouldn't the structure deck be split too (at least those with different names)? they were always separate if the names were different, until gates of the underworld, where they are now together again. -Lpoi (talk • ) 05:44, July 12, 2012 (UTC) ::::::::I thought they already were. e.g. Structure Deck 13: Revival of the Great Dragon and Structure Deck: Rise of the Dragon Lords. Although things got messy with Structure Deck 16: Lord of the Magicians and Structure Deck: Spellcaster's Command, since the Asian-English version used the OCG contents and the TCG name. -- Deltaneos (talk) 13:07, July 12, 2012 (UTC) :::::::::After devil's gate they are back to one. -Lpoi (talk • ) 13:34, July 12, 2012 (UTC) ::::If we are to split such sets, what page names would we use? For the Japanese Legend of Blue Eyes White Dragon, it's either "Legend of Blue Eyes White Dragon (Japanese)" or "Legend of Blue Eyes White Dragon (OCG-JP)", I guess. For the other one, "Legend of Blue Eyes White Dragon (TCG, OCG-AE and OCG-KR)" is a bit much and I don't think it's fair to give it the undisambiguated page name because it's hard to disambiguate it. "Legend of Blue Eyes White Dragon (international)" might work. -- Deltaneos (talk) 00:59, July 15, 2012 (UTC) :::::I don't think it'd be that much trouble to disambiguate it - in the LOB case, should do just fine. I don't think we get nearly enough visitors who would be more familiar with the Japanese versions of these sets to justify giving both pages of each set a disambiguating tag in the name. :::::"(OCG-JP)" would be consistent with what we do elsewhere on the wiki, but I'm more partial to "(Japanese)" myself simply because it is (should be ^^ ) easier to remember and type. 「ディノ奴 」? · ☎ Dinoguy1000 05:32, July 15, 2012 (UTC) ::::::We can put them into subpages. example on legend of blue eyes page, we can just write "for the japanese set, see of Blue Eyes White Dragon/OCG" or something like that. -Lpoi (talk • ) 07:37, July 15, 2012 (UTC) :::::::I'm not a big fan of using subpages for mainspace pages. A wiki really needs to have one strict hierarchy of pages to make a consistent use of subpages. In this case, the OCG (Japanese rather) set is not a subtopic of the other set. To me that seems a bit like using "George Bush" and "George Bush/senior" as page names. :::::::I don't think there's any difficulty in naming the article for the Japanese set or including a notice to help the user find it. It's what page name we'd give the other set I'm wondering about. Would it be "Legend of Blue Eyes White Dragon", "Legend of Blue Eyes White Dragon (international)" or something else? -- Deltaneos (talk) 13:14, July 15, 2012 (UTC) ::::::::I'm advocating for just "Legend of Blue Eyes White Dragon", without "(international)" or any other disambiguating tag. As I wrote above, that'll be the set the vast majority of readers would actually be looking for, and if they're not, a simple hatnote should be enough to get them sorted out. 「ディノ奴 」? · ☎ Dinoguy1000 21:30, July 18, 2012 (UTC) :::::::::I see. Sorry, I missed that part of your message earlier. -- Deltaneos (talk) 23:59, July 18, 2012 (UTC) So LOB is aready split (as a test?). but what about decks? the first 10 structure deck can remain, but those at the end should be split since they are (almost) different? Currently this is what i know of (maybe): To split: *All english pack from LOB to PGD (magic and spell ruler aready separate) *All structure deck from zombie world and marik (some aready split) *Gold Series Unsure: *Starter Deck 2008 and 2009 (split or combine?) hope to clarify soon -Lpoi (talk • ) 06:27, July 23, 2012 (UTC) :Actually, I've never especially liked how the Magic Ruler and Spell Ruler articles are set up. When "Magic Ruler" was renamed to "Spell Ruler", it is my understanding that no individual release got renamed, but only the set as a whole (I've certainly never seen "Spell Ruler" reprints of a release originally released as "Magic Ruler"). I'm thinking that the current "Magic Ruler" article, which only covers the Japanese set, should be moved to "Magic Ruler (Japanese)", and the "Spell Ruler" article should be split into a "Magic Ruler" article that covers the Asian-English, North American English, and European English releases, and a "Spell Ruler" article that covers the Korean, Worldwide English, French, German, Italian, and Spanish releases (and at least in the case of the French release, its French name, "Le Maitre des Magies", and set prefix, "MDM", suggests it should be grouped with the "Magic Ruler" releases instead). :Other than that, I don't have much to add. I've never had a very strong opinion on how the Structure Decks should be handled, since they usually seem to be the same base set with a few cards removed or added in the transition from Japan to the rest of the world (I do, however, have a strong opinion on e.g. Structure Deck: Marik, where the releases are separated by years and have virtually nothing in common beyond the name and maybe a vague theme - even the box art is different). 「ディノ奴 」? · ☎ Dinoguy1000 07:11, July 23, 2012 (UTC) ::I don't know about splitting Spell Ruler and the non-Japanese Magic Ruler. The name change was more the result of a legal matter than the creation of a new set. Once you ignore the change in name, it seems to be the same case as LOB. Same set, but one group of regions got a few more cards than the other. The European English one was originally known as Magic Ruler, as you can see from its set ID. The European one has also been printed in [http://ecx.images-amazon.com/images/I/41XYRXW1A3L._AA251_.jpg packets reading Spell Ruler], but didn't have their set ID changed to SRL in those packs. -- Deltaneos (talk) 20:30, July 24, 2012 (UTC) :::I'm not 100% certain, but I don't think MRL-E existed before the rename from Magic Ruler to Spell Ruler, although the "North American" version, MRL-, was released in Europe before the rename. -- Deltaneos (talk) 17:23, July 28, 2012 (UTC) Structure Decks and Duelist Packs this is discussed before, but we should make a decision soon about decks released after SD10. when the template is used for the structure deck, should we separate the tcg and ocg decks (for the newer pages: devil's gate & gates of the underworld, dragonic legion & dragons collide)? what about those with same name (warrior's strike, lost sanctuary etc) and also not forgetting "lord of the magicians". while we are at it, should we remove the number from the strucuture deck name (and perhaps duelist packs too)? -Lpoi (talk • ) 13:41, August 7, 2012 (UTC) :Yeah, this was brought up at Forum:Renaming old Structure Decks before. It didn't get much comments. I'm in favour of dropping the numbers anyway, as you can tell from my comment there. :From SD13/SDRL onwards, our articles are a mess, since some of the OCG and TCG ones are merged and some aren't. I'd say either merge all or none of them from the point where they started to diverge, not a mixture. I don't think the ones like Warrior's Strike having the same name is an important factor, when the content and set number differences is the same fashion the other Structure Decks. :For the Marik ones, I'd definitely say separate articles for the two. -- Deltaneos (talk) 15:36, August 7, 2012 (UTC) :Duelist Pack: Yugi has different content and set prefixes between the TCG and Korean versions. Should they be separated? -- Deltaneos (talk) 16:13, August 7, 2012 (UTC) ::they should be separate (maybe duelist pack: yugi (ocg-kr) or some other name?) should we do so for starter deck 2008 and 2009 too? but will lord of the magicians have 3 articles instead (loard of the magicians, spellcaster's command, spellcaster's command (OCG-AE)?) since the korea follow the japan, we should not put (japanese) in the names as in booster pack. maybe (OCG) and (OCG-KR) if korea only? -Lpoi (talk • ) 02:52, August 8, 2012 (UTC) Should we drop the surname for the future duelist packs? since duelist pack yusei, there is no longer surname in the english pack name (japan do not even have them in the first place). so should we move yuma tsukumo to yuma and kite tenjo to kite respectively or wait for the english release before moving? -Lpoi (talk • ) 17:37, August 17, 2012 (UTC) :Yeah, I don't see any reason to use a different name than the one printed on the pack, used by Konami etc. -- Deltaneos (talk) 21:32, August 17, 2012 (UTC) ::Is anyone starting on the structure decks and duelist packs? i don't mind starting on it for the new format, and perhaps remove the numbering on the article pages too (but some redirects i cannot move them). -Lpoi (talk • ) 03:38, August 18, 2012 (UTC) Navboxes There's currently two navboxes being used for sets and . They have a few sub navboxes which are rarely used by themselves. They try to cover every set released in their regions. But they're kind of unbalanced, messy and missing a lot of promotional cards. Would anyone else be in favour of splitting them down into a number of navboxes for different types of sets, like these two examples? -- Deltaneos (talk) 02:16, August 7, 2012 (UTC) :I support that, needless to say. This is something that's really long overdue. (Also, while we're here: anyone want to look at getting a quick-n-dirty list of sets missing from the navboxes scraped together?) 「ディノ奴 」? · ☎ Dinoguy1000 06:19, August 7, 2012 (UTC) ::I actually like the idea of combining both ocg and tcg template into one big template, which also includes the reprints, structure decks and starter decks. however, i do wonder if it would be better to have the promotion sets on another template instead. -Lpoi (talk • ) 13:32, August 7, 2012 (UTC) :Okay, added a promotional cards navbox to my sandbox. You can't even fit half the box on the screen in the default skin and it's still missing quite a few sets. So, I'm sure that means we'll be splitting it into other smaller boxes, e.g. one for video game promotional cards, one for Special Editions etc. -- Deltaneos (talk) 21:59, August 12, 2012 (UTC) ::That was one LONG list of template. although i would prefer to have one template, with all the show/hide button so when creating the set articles, one template is enough, instead of deciding which one to use. - (talk) 07:24, August 24, 2012 (UTC) It has been two months... any news on the navboxes redesign? -Lpoi (talk • ) 17:36, October 6, 2012 (UTC) :They've all been created as templates, though I don't know if Delt intends anything additional before they start being deployed, and I don't know if they have 100% coverage of the set types they document (much less 100% coverage of sets, period), though that's something that can be addressed on-the-fly. 「ディノ奴 」? · ☎ Dinoguy1000 19:09, October 6, 2012 (UTC) Upcoming sets protection After Forum:Upcoming sets protection, we decided to protect upcoming sets until their release dates. The main thing this was preventing was false and unconfirmed additions to the lists. Now that the lists are usually transcluded from other pages e.g. Set Card Lists:Return of the Duelist (TCG-EN) on Return of the Duelist, the list pages are unprotected and getting a lot of unsourced edits. I've no idea if a lot of the edits to that Return of the Duelist list have been confirmed or not. Should we start protecting those list pages until the release dates too? -- Deltaneos (talk) 11:55, August 9, 2012 (UTC) :I'd say yes. The whole intention to protecting upcoming sets is to decrease the number of unsourced edits, which is something we want generally, independent of any particular page type. 「ディノ奴 」? · ☎ Dinoguy1000 18:57, August 9, 2012 (UTC) japan name in ocg articles should we move the ocg Zombie World back to undead world? the following uses japan names in their articles, i don't see why we can't for this: *Revival of Black Demons Dragon, not b. skull dragon *Champion of Black Magic, not dark magic *Threat of the Dark Demon World, not archfiend world -Lpoi (talk • ) 03:54, August 18, 2012 (UTC) :I would say move it to Undead World, unless it is to be merged with Zombie World. Because in that case, it's a Japanese and Korean only set, so it should use its Japanese and Korean translated name. Just to nitpick, Threat of the Dark Demon World uses a different Japanese word for "Demon" than "Archfiend" does, so "Archfiend World" wouldn't be valid either way. -- Deltaneos (talk) 10:50, August 18, 2012 (UTC) Set Ratio pages This is really ugly. Anyone attempt to redesign it soon? But is the ratio page really necessary in the first place? i actually would prefer to not even include it. any thoughts? -Lpoi (talk • ) 09:51, February 22, 2013 (UTC) :Yeah, that thing is years overdue for a complete overhaul, but as I've said elsewhere, I have no idea how to even begin to approach it. That being said, I've never considered the option of simply ditching the ratio pages; that's an interesting idea. Basically the whole thing could be covered in the "Breakdown" section of the set pages proper, after all. 「ディノ奴 」? · ☎ Dinoguy1000 16:42, February 22, 2013 (UTC) Other * Wow, that's fantastic. Great job, Delta.--YamiWheeler (talk • ) 22:27, July 10, 2012 (UTC) *: Thank you. -- Deltaneos (talk) 21:17, July 14, 2012 (UTC) I've made a start to an infobox template, Template:Infobox set. -- Deltaneos (talk) 21:16, July 14, 2012 (UTC) :Looks good so far; I'll see if I don't have time tomorrow to make some tweaks. One thing I immediately noted is that you're using a separate row for each bit of information (most prominent in regards to the Japanese name pieces), whereas I designed to have multiple bits of information in each row; we should decide ASAP which style we want to use (or if we want to come up with a mix, or something else entirely). We also need to do the same for the overall styling; is pretty plain mostly because I'm not terribly good at visual styling, so we'll probably go with what you've done here and in the other two newer infoboxes. 「ディノ奴 」? · ☎ Dinoguy1000 05:43, July 15, 2012 (UTC) ::It originally had the (unsplit) Japanese characters and rõmaji in the same cell. That's also what's done in the other two, but I thought it looked messy when one or both of them started to run over more than one line. The extra labels in brackets afterwards would create even more line breaks. ::The visual styling for and was pretty much the same as the navboxes. Simple and straightforward works for me, as boring as that sounds. I probably would have done the same with , but I thought if I at least kept the colour scheme from the old layout, it would have some legacy rather than be abandoned entirely. Headings having yellow text and a maroon background seems to have the main colour scheme for the entire site at one point. See the Main Page and for examples. I think those colours work for some topics, but the soft blue works almost everywhere. -- Deltaneos (talk) 13:01, July 15, 2012 (UTC) :::That makes sense. I didn't even consider wrapping, though it's definitely one issue I considered more generally back when I was working on . :::I'd be fine with a bit more color myself, though I also quite like the visual breakup provided by the s in (of course, since I'm the one who came up with that visual effect there, my statement should be taken with a grain of salt... ;) ). Maybe we should look into ways to mix the two some? :::I've definitely noticed that color scheme over the years. I think it actually works pretty well for YGO, though the current yellow text on a red background seen in some places around here isn't as usability/accessibility-friendly as it needs to be. I have wondered, though, what the story behind this scheme is; for instance, did it influence the colors used in the logo, or vice versa, or did they just happen to end up at the same place separately? Who originally suggested/implemented an example of the scheme here? Etc. 「ディノ奴 」? · ☎ Dinoguy1000 21:38, July 18, 2012 (UTC) ::::I think has some semantic meaning, granted I don't really know what it is. So, it probably shouldn't be used decoratively, but border-top or border-bottom CSS could be used to the same effect. Any ideas on how the two could be mixed? ::::The yellow on maroon looks fine for all forms of colour blindness that colorfilter.wickline.org simulates. The colour scheme was used in January 2006. Narchibald84 and Pcouw were the earliest prolific editors, after TwoTailedFox, as far as I know. Since they hadn't joined at that point it must have been TwoTailedFox, who started the colour scheme. The logo (File:Wiki.png) was a joined effort by Narchibald84 and User:Pcouw. If either was influenced by the other, the logo must have been based on the colour scheme. -- Deltaneos (talk) 23:59, July 18, 2012 (UTC) :::::I can't find anything suggesting the "hr" HTML element is meant to have any semantic meaning; there's no so much as a whisper of it in the HTML 4 standard. According to "Lesser-known semantic elements" (current version), there is precedent for horizontal rules being used to separate such things as scene changes in stories or stanzas in poems (cases where a new header isn't justified); their use in the infobox does meet the spirit of this semantic usage. :::::As for mixing lines (whether generated by an "hr" or by CSS) and colors, perhaps just featuring a borderless background color on the label cells, and separating the rows similar to how I did in could work? :::::So I see. I was mostly worried about the contrast, but that doesn't seem to be a real concern. :::::Makes sense, I suspected it might've been either TTF or Dantman, though Dant didn't show up here until late 2007 now that I check. 「ディノ奴 」? · ☎ Dinoguy1000 02:25, July 19, 2012 (UTC) Ahh very nice! I like the video game booster page. Wish I knew the MediaWiki syntax so I could help you and Dinoguy out. -_- But anyways, I can get images for the Tag Force boosters if you need them, how should we name those since they do not have set abbreviations? Keep it up Delta and Dino! ^_^ Look234 (talk • ) 21:24, July 20, 2012 (UTC) :Thanks. Help is appreciated. Tag Force Booster Pack images would be great. I've also asked Falzar FZ if he could upload them. You might want to keep an eye on his contributions, so neither of you don't end up spending a lot of time on something that's already being done. :As for names, existing video game set images are using Set Name-''Set Type''-''VGID''.extension. e.g. File:Blue Millenium Puzzle-Booster-EDS.jpg. If you think something else would work better, feel free to suggest it. -- Deltaneos (talk) 21:37, July 20, 2012 (UTC) Should we put the galleries section above the lists section? With the lists demanding 100% page width, there's often a lot of whitespace to the left of the infobox. It'll probably mean less items per row in the galleries, but no big deal, right? -- Deltaneos (talk) 12:50, July 23, 2012 (UTC) :That sounds reasonable to me. 「ディノ奴 」? · ☎ Dinoguy1000 19:27, July 23, 2012 (UTC) Should we put the Template:Set navigation elsewhere? the template contains ratio and galleries too, i don't think it is suitable to be placed under list. should we move it to the top or bottom? -Lpoi (talk • ) 04:52, August 22, 2012 (UTC) :The reason it's currently in the lists section is because initially that box didn't have ratio links and galleries are a form of list and they didn't have their own section on the page at the time. But now the breakdown, galleries and lists sections already contain links to those pages. Putting the entire collection of links in one of those sections doesn't make much sense. :As for relocating it, I don't think the top of the page looks right. The bottom is a lot more logical than the current position, although it seems less likely to be used down there. But yeah, I'd say put it on the bottom. If we ever get around to including the set navigation on the ratio, gallery and list pages themselves, I'd consider putting at the top of them. -- Deltaneos (talk) 21:34, August 24, 2012 (UTC) I think we need a 3 lines for the cover card in the template:infobox set. one is the default one that we are using now. another two is to separate the ocg and tcg if they are using different cover cards. if not, it does not show up properly. or perhaps there is a way to fix it. -Lpoi (talk • ) 12:56, August 31, 2012 (UTC) :I've messed with the template so it can handle bracketed text after the links like you've used there. Just some things to note about the change. :* If you don't link the cover cards now, they'll get messed-up. Although they should be linked anyway, so that shouldn't be a problem. :* You can no longer include tags after the cover cards. That shouldn't be something we'll need though. :* If you put a ")" at the end, you must include an opening "(" before it and after the link. But that's common sense, so it shouldn't be a problem. :-- Deltaneos (talk) 15:47, August 31, 2012 (UTC)